Typo question 42

Yes but I don't think it's logical conclusions apply for other reasons

It does happen to be a bit frightening to see an economics PHD doubt evolution. I think it would be good if someone like Scott Alexander writes a basic "here's why evolution is true"-post.

I have large PR problems when talking about rationality with others unfamiliar with it, with the Straw Vulcan being the most common trap conversation will fall into.

Are there any guides out there in the vein of the EA Pitch Wiki that could help someone avoid these traps and portray rationality in a more positive light? If not, would it be worth creating one?

So far I've found, how rationality can make your life more awesome, rationality for curiosity sake, rationality as winning, PR problems and the contrary rationality isn't all that great.

Some uncomfortable questions I've asked myself lately:

• Could you without intentionally listening to music for 30 days?

• I recall being taught to argue towards the predetermined point of view in schools and extra-curriculum activities like debating. Is that counterproductive or suboptimal?

• Listening back to a recording I made of a therapy session when I was quite mentally ill, I feel amazed at just how much I have improved. I am appalled by the mode of thought of that young person. What impression do the people around me have that they won't discuss openly?

• Aren't storm water drain explorer's potentially mapping out critical infrastructure which may be targetted more easily by terrorists? One way I see these things going is commercial drain tours. That way there would be a legitimised presence there and perhaps enhanced security.

• something to be asked of academia

• Imagine a person was abused for a large part of their childhood and is subsequently traumatised and mentally ill, then, upon regaining greater functioning as an adult decides to extort their abusive parents for money with the threat of exposing them while still counting on inheritence, instead of simply going to the authorities and approaching a legal settlement (expecting that will cut of any pleasant relations). Are there actions unconscionable? What would you do in their situation?

• If I went straight to a family member without preparing them in advance would they consent to my cryonics application? to support a cryonics application?

• Do most people really think like this?

• The rate at which I come up with ideas that I feel are worthwhile business ventures is unmanageable. So, I’ll take a leaf out of the EA Ventures method webpage by asking: what are three existing organizations that are doing similar things and why aren’t you joining them?

Some uncomfortable questions I've asked myself lately:

• Could you without intentionally listening to music for 30 days?

• I recall being taught to argue towards the predetermined point of view in schools and extra-curriculum activities like debating. Is that counterproductive or suboptimal?

• Listening back to a recording I made of a therapy session when I was quite mentally ill, I feel amazed at just how much I have improved. I am appalled by the mode of thought of that young person. What impression do the people around me have that they won't discuss openly?

• Aren't storm water drain explorer's potentially mapping out critical infrastructure which may be targetted more easily by terrorists? One way I see these things going is commercial drain tours. That way there would be a legitimised presence there and perhaps enhanced security.

• something to be asked of academia

• Imagine a person was abused for a large part of their childhood and is subsequently traumatised and mentally ill, then, upon regaining greater functioning as an adult decides to extort their abusive parents for money with the threat of exposing them while still counting on inheritence, instead of simply going to the authorities and approaching a legal settlement (expecting that will cut of any pleasant relations). Are there actions unconscionable? What would you do in their situation?

• If I went straight to a family member without preparing them in advance would they consent to my cryonics application? to support a cryonics application?

• Do most people really think like this?

• The rate at which I come up with ideas that I feel are worthwhile business ventures is unmanageable. So, I’ll take a leaf out of the EA Ventures method webpage by asking: what are three existing organizations that are doing similar things and why aren’t you joining them?

I think that we are both right.

Hypothetically, if there were some famous university professor who had written at length about the possibility of, I dunno, simulated superintelligent ant hives, then I think that Bostrom might have felt compelled to include a discussion of the "superintelligent ant hive hypothesis" in his book. He's striving for completeness, at least in terms of his coverage of high-level aspects of the A.I. Risk landscape. It would also be a huge slight to the theory's originator if he left out any reference to the "superintelligent ant hive hypothesis". And finally, Bostrom probably doesn't want to place himself in the position of arbiter of which ideas get to be taken seriously, when lots of people probably think of lots of parts of A.I. Risk as loony already.

So, I don't think Bostrom was sitting in his office plotting how to make his book a weaponized credulity meme. But I also felt, from my own perspective, that the inclusion of the Hanson stuff was just a bit forced.

I wrote a review of Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies. It's also of an essay about the nature of the halo effect on how ideas are perceived.

There's Owari, Zoku-Owari, Kizu (3 movies), then the author has also announced some new books to be written. So who knows...

The simple view is that medicine exists to fight death and disease, and that is, of course, its most basic task. Death is the enemy. But the enemy has superior forces. Eventually, it wins. And in a war that you cannot win, you don't want a general who fights to the point of total annihilation. You don't want Custer. You want Robert E. Lee, someone who knows how to fight for territory that can be won and how to surrender it when it can't, someone who understands that the damage is greatest if all you do is battle to the bitter end.

Most often, these days, medicine seems to supply neither Custers nor Lees. We are increasingly the generals who march the soldiers onward, saying all the while, "You let me know when you want to stop." All-out treatment, we tell the incurably ill, is a train you can get off at any time--just say when. But for most patients and their families we are asking too much. They remain riven by doubt and fear and desperation; some are deluded by a fantasy of what medical science can achieve. Our responsibility, in medicine, is to deal with human beings as they are. People only die once. They have no experience to draw on. They need doctors and nurses who are willing to have the hard discussions and say what they have seen, who will help people prepare for what is to come--and escape a warehoused oblivion that few really want.

Atul Gawande, Being Mortal: Medicine and What Matters in the End.

A nice aspirational overview of applied economics.

Don't hold your breath.